You are assuming a parallelism that simply does not exist and never will. Employers need to hire competent actuaries. The CAS produces them. If the SOA produces actuaries of unknown competence -- might be competent but might not -- then why in the world would any employer take that chance?

Would you rather be treated by a doctor who graduated from medical school and passed the medical boards, or would you be just as happy being treated by me? After all, you don't know if I'm a competent doctor or not, right?

Bruce

I'm not arguing that employers should accept FSA-GIs right now. I'm just saying throwing out the statement that they haven't produced competent actuaries yet is meaningless and inflammatory, since they haven't produced the actuaries yet.

I'm not arguing that employers should accept FSA-GIs right now. I'm just saying throwing out the statement that they haven't produced competent actuaries yet is meaningless and inflammatory, since they haven't produced the actuaries yet.

OK, I accept that, but why should they have gotten into this business in the first place when the CAS has been doing a perfectly good job for 100 years? It's outrageous.

Again, I have to believe that a significantly large portion of an actuary's competence comes from experience, and little is directly attributable to the exams. This would make me think that insurers, not the CAS, are producing competent actuaries, the same way large investment banking firms produce competent investment bankers.

You're kidding right? It's an inflammatory statement that doesn't mean anything since at this point the SOA hasn't even produced and FSA-GI (not counting the FCAS freebie people).

I could equally well say "The SOA hasn't produced an incompetent GI actuary yet. Why wouldn't an employer accept the FSA-GI?"

Reread Ron's post. I think what he said was not misleading or inflammatory. He was warning of the risk of going down the SOA FSA-GI tract at this time. He even stated that it was risky, and only do it if you want the risk.

Again, I have to believe that a significantly large portion of an actuary's competence comes from experience, and little is directly attributable to the exams. This would make me think that insurers, not the CAS, are producing competent actuaries, the same way large investment banking firms produce competent investment bankers.

Do you agree with that?

To an extent. But the CAS certifies their competence in a way that the SOA may be unable to do. Just as an example, who will the SOA get to grade its Fellowship exams in the GI track? Without competent graders, how will they produce competent Fellows? I could go on and on.

Again, I have to believe that a significantly large portion of an actuary's competence comes from experience, and little is directly attributable to the exams. This would make me think that insurers, not the CAS, are producing competent actuaries, the same way large investment banking firms produce competent investment bankers.

Do you agree with that?

I disagree with this. There is a significant amount of stuff that many CAS actuaries do in there job that that is taught through the exams.

Not all of it of course, but I think your 90/10 split you proposed is off by a lot.

Reread Ron's post. I think what he said was not misleading or inflammatory. He was warning of the risk of going down the SOA FSA-GI tract at this time. He even stated that it was risky, and only do it if you want the risk.

At least that is how I read is comment.

I do agree with the second part of his post (it's risky doing the GI program right now); I'm just taking issue with the way he started off the post.

ETA: It may not have been clear what part of his post I was calling unfair, but maybe this clears it up.

To an extent. But the CAS certifies their competence in a way that the SOA may be unable to do. Just as an example, who will the SOA get to grade its Fellowship exams in the GI track? Without competent graders, how will they produce competent Fellows? I could go on and on.

Bruce

If I had to guess, they would get the FCAS's who designed the syllabus to grade, or some of the other converts.

I still wouldn't touch the FSA-GI, but I just don't see why employers seem so concerned about which exams someone passed when what really matters is their work experience. They may even be able to get FSA-GIs at a discount since the market is not accepting them.

I disagree with this. There is a significant amount of stuff that many CAS actuaries do in there job that that is taught through the exams.

Not all of it of course, but I think your 90/10 split you proposed is off by a lot.

Of course, this varies greatly by practice area.

If they do it in their job, what does it matter if it's on the exams? That's what I mean - the most important material is learned whether or not any exams are taken. Obscure material on exams not used often in practice is forgotten and referenced when necessary, which is exactly what someone who didn't take that exam would do if they came across it and didn't know it.

If they do it in their job, what does it matter if it's on the exams? That's what I mean - the most important material is learned whether or not any exams are taken. Obscure material on exams not used often in practice is forgotten and referenced when necessary, which is exactly what someone who didn't take that exam would do if they came across it and didn't know it.

You are making an argument for there being no need for actuarial exams or credentials, rather than an argument for the FSA-GI credentials.

That is a completely different conversation than the OP was asking, not really that relevant to the real world that we currently work in.